Browsing Posts tagged Crush videos

Four years ago the US Supreme Court overruled Congress’s attempt to regulate “crush videos,” stating that the law was an impermissible, over-broad regulation of free speech. For more analysis of the decision, see here. Though the decision was distressing, it did not herald an end of attempts to regulate that particular form of animal cruelty; Congress quickly passed an amended version of the law, one that has yet to be tested before the Supreme Court.

Last week the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated criminal charges in the case of US v. Richards for [the creation of] video[s] of animals being tortured to death by a suggestively dressed woman, holding that images of animals killed for sexual gratification are not protected forms of speech, and are in fact “obscene.” Obscenity is the key to the law; obscene speech does not have the same protections as common speech, and can be regulated. Additionally, the 5th Circuit rejected an argument that the law is unconstitutional because it unfairly targets a narrow type of obscenity (here, animal cruelty), holding that particular categories of obscenity may be targeted based on their socially harmful secondary effects. continue reading…

Each week the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) sends out an e-mail alert called Take Action Thursday, which tells subscribers about current actions they can take to help animals. NAVS is a national, not-for-profit educational organization incorporated in the State of Illinois. NAVS promotes greater compassion, respect, and justice for animals through educational programs based on respected ethical and scientific theory and supported by extensive documentation of the cruelty and waste of vivisection. You can register to receive these action alerts and more at the NAVS Web site.

This week’s Take Action Thursday looks at legislative efforts to restrict or ban the use of performing animal acts in circuses and applauds a U.S. appeals court ruling upholding the Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act. continue reading…

On June 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the “Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010” (“the Act”) is Constitutional on its face because it prohibits “obscenity” not protected by the First Amendment, and that Congress has a “significant interest” in preventing the violence and criminal activity that these heinous videos necessitate.

Image courtesy ALDF Blog.

The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded a 2013 ruling by the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas, which had held that animal crush videos are not obscene and that the Act violated defendants’ First Amendment rights. In 2012, defendants Ashley Nicole Richards and Brent Justice were arrested in Houston and charged with violating the Act for producing and selling obscene videos of Richards torturing dogs, cats, and other animals for the sexual gratification of viewers.

The Fifth Circuit agreed with the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) that the district court should have applied the Supreme Court’s three-part test for obscenity established in the case of Miller v. California, rather than relying on the “variable and debatable” legislative history of the Act. ALDF filed its amicus brief, along with the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, in August 2013.

In the 2010 case of U.S. v. Stevens, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that an earlier version of the Act from 1999 was unconstitutional; Congress swiftly and nearly unanimously passed an amended version of the Act in 2010. Today, the Fifth Circuit ruled that this second and current version of the Act is Constitutional on its face because it serves the “significant interest” of preventing the violence to animals promoted and required by such videos, and was “reasonably tailored” to meet that interest, in part because the Act now exempts lawful activities like hunting, normal veterinary practices, and customary agricultural practices. continue reading…

Each week the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS) sends out an e-mail alert called “Take Action Thursday,” which tells subscribers about current actions they can take to help animals. NAVS is a national, not-for-profit educational organization incorporated in the State of Illinois. NAVS promotes greater compassion, respect, and justice for animals through educational programs based on respected ethical and scientific theory and supported by extensive documentation of the cruelty and waste of vivisection. You can register to receive these action alerts and more at the NAVS Web site.

This week’s Take Action Thursday looks at recent legislation to regulate the sale or possession of dangerous wildlife and a new court ruling invalidating the revised federal “animal crush video prohibition” law.continue reading…

— Our thanks to Michael Markarian, president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund, for permission to republish this post, which originally appeared on his blog Animals & Politics on April 4, 2013.

Some of the leading opponents of animal welfare in the U.S. House of Representatives may run for the U.S. Senate in 2014, where if elected they would ostensibly have more power to block common-sense animal protection policies.

The African lion Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., hunted and ate, on display in his congressional office---Betsy Woodruff, National Review.

Broun has one of the most extreme anti-animal voting records in the Congress; time and again he opposes the most modest efforts to prevent cruelty and abuse, and he goes out of his way to attack animal protection. Although he is a medical doctor, he voted twice, in 2008 and 2009, to allow the trade in monkeys, chimpanzees, and other primates as exotic pets, which can injure children and adults and spread deadly diseases such as tuberculosis and herpes-B virus. He voted to allow the commercial sale and slaughter of wild horses and burros. Shockingly, he was one of only three lawmakers to vote against legislation in 2010 to ban the trafficking in obscene animal “crush” videos, in which scantily clad women in high heels crush puppies, kittens, and other small animals to death for the sexual titillation of viewers. continue reading…

"Service Animal" Scammers (New Yorker): An increasing number of your neighbors have been keeping company with their pets in human-only establishments simply by claiming that the creatures are their licensed companion animals and are necessary to their mental well-being.

Why London’s pig café pop-up is a terrible idea for pigs: Teacup pigs are adorable. Unfortunately, they’re also a complete fabrication. But that isn’t stopping a local London specialty breeder and Yelp from putting on an adoption event to educate the public on “proper” micro pig care.